Lately, especially in the media and politics, there has been a lot of talk about "Stop and Frisk." New York city stood out for their controversial policing techniques, and higher courts ultimately found that the way they were enforcing these stop and frisk shakedowns in NY was illegal.

It's really just a lot of talking points for politicians and the media, because the United States Supreme Court decided this issue decades ago in Terry v. Ohio, a landmark case in legal detention. Basically what the courts found in Terry, was that an officer needs to be able to articulate facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe criminal activity has or is about to be committed. This is referred to as "Reasonable Suspicion", a standard that is lower than probable cause.

Now at this point, there are entire books and treatises dedicated to thousands of state and federal cases that have argued what constitutes reasonable suspicion pursuant to Terry. Reasonable suspicion applies to people walking around in public as well as automobile stops. Reasonable suspicion becomes very important for DWI criminal charges when the nature of the car stop is in question.

What we know for sure is that police need a broken law, or some highly suspicious activity/behavior before they stop and frisk an individual. Saying you're in a high crime neighborhood, walking the sidewalk at night, and that you dress/look a certain way is not enough. There must be more than a "hunch" of illegal activity/intent.

So at the end of the day, Stop and Frisk has been illegal for decades, unless it is conducted pursuant to the concept of reasonable suspicion, laid out decades ago in Terry v. Ohio. If a defendant is found to have been detained illegally, then their remedy would be a suppression of evidence beyond the stop, which ends up invalidating the charges completely. If you've been detained, charged, arrested, or otherwise harassed by law enforcement, explore your rights by calling an Asheville Criminal Lawyer now.